Misplaced Pages

Talk:Origins of Asian martial arts

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Djma12 (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 30 December 2006 (→Request for Comment: NPOV tag for current article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:51, 30 December 2006 by Djma12 (talk | contribs) (→Request for Comment: NPOV tag for current article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconIndia Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMartial arts Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Reasons

The disputes mentioned in the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts are not strong enough to reject the Indian presence from Chinese martial arts history.

The article has no mention of Sengchou's master Batuo, an Indian, no depictions of the shaolin murals, no mentions that the microscopic section itself has disagreements including the dating of the Yi Jin Jing, or who wrote it, complete with the claims that it was written by a "Village master" or such, no mentions of major news institutions endorsing the traditional claims and rejecting revisionist history.

The overwhelming majority, endorsed by major institutions, deserves a mention. Hence this article.

I have provided a dual link to both my article and Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts, wherever required, so the reader knows both POVs extensively.

Freedom skies 09:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

a little disappointed

i'm a little disappointed in this page. it seems to have been written to express one opinion and the article itself is very opinionated in its tone. It also presents myth as fact and continues to talk about a legend as fact without even a discussion of it as a legend. First, the article written by freedom skies states that the shaolin temple makes certain claims about bodhidharma and the martial arts.... and then quotes websites of uncertain authenticity... it also does not allow for other views on the subject matter and uses weasel words such as "microscopic" community of scholars. it also misquotes books on the origins of bodhidharma. Freedom skies, i'm very disappointed that you have gone to the bodhdiharma article in wikipedia and deleted sections of the article and further, have then rewritten certain sentences of that prior bodhidharma article to represent your viewpoints... for example the sentence - "Shaolin monastery records state that two of its very first monks, Huiguang and Sengchou, were expert in the martial arts years before the arrival of Bodhidharma. ""The Taishō Tripiṭaka documents Sengchou's skill with the tin staff." were written in the Bodhidharma article to support the view that there were martial artists in the shaolin temple BEFORE bodhidharma...

you have plagiarized what JFD has written it, and then rewritten it as... ""Buddhabhadra (Chinese: 跋陀; pinyin: Bátuó) was an Indian dhyana master who was the founding abbot of Shaolin Monastery and the teacher of Sengchou. Monastery records state that Sengchou was one of the two of its very first monks, the other being Huiguang. Sengchou was an expert in the martial arts."" The Taishō Tripiṭaka documents Sengchou's skill with the tin staff."" This is written to suggest that Batuo taught Sengchou martial arts, and thus your assertion.

You have also only partly quoted lines from other articles - for instance from the "Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts" article written by JFD, which this article takes most of its information from but appears to twist the information. You have written in this article.... ""Cited in support of the Indian progeniture of Shaolin kung fu is a fresco painted during the Qing Dynasty (1644–1912) depicting light-skinned and dark-skinned monks sparring, inscribed and translated in Japanese as "Tenjiku Naranokaku," which translates as "the fighting techniques to train the body which come from India..."" the original sentence was... ""Cited in support of the Indian progeniture of Shaolin kung fu is a fresco painted during the Qing Dynasty (1644–1912) depicting light-skinned and dark-skinned monks sparring, supposedly inscribed and translated in Japanese as "Tenjiku Naranokaku," which translates as "the fighting techniques to train the body from India..." Elsewhere, however, the title is given in Chinese as "Quanpu Bihua," which translates as "Boxing Drills Mural.""

The worst thing i think is that you are using the same sources that JFD and I used to support the facts behind the legend of bodhidharma and then plagiarizing what he wrote and then rewriting it and at the same time misquoting the original author in the book. In your article, you haven't even discussed the fact that the Bodhidharma legend is contradictory as to his origins and as to whether or not other historians even believe in his existence. You have also talked about the mural of dark skinned and light skinned monks. That mural makes no statements on indians or chinese in the mural. There are african american and egyptian nationalists who lay the same claim that that mural depicts africans or egyptians... Most likely, that mural represents dark skinned and light skinned monks - in china there are dark skinned chinese and light skinned chinese... regardless, that mural was made in the 17th century ad or so, 1000years after bodhidharma supposedly was in china.

However, I do applaud you on admitting that martial arts existed in China before Bodhidharma... Kennethtennyson 00:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Reasons

I can see the disaaponitment and the outrage. However, allow me to explain :-

  • The "Indian connection" comprises not only of one man, in this case Bodhidharma, but many men over the ages including the very founder of the Shaolin-Si, Batuo. Batuo was the teacher of it's monks, and the founding abbot of the institution where they learnt martial arts. To say that they would have still learnt martial arts without the Shaolin Si or it's very founding abbot is a little far fetched. Especially given that that insitution found by Batuo was poised to become the focal point of Martial arts in the years to come.
  • Bodhidharma has been endorsed by the Shaolin itself. We may squabble and revisionist historians may write what they want. The whole trying to "chart the martial arts history authoritatively" thing itself is unproven, and they have too many dissentions within their very microscopic community as such. I won't go into the tedious details.
  • The mural has one translation as given in the article. In case of Asian languages there are always multiple translations, but a mural showing Indian and Chinese monks sparring and haveing the most obvious translation as ""the fighting techniques to train the body which come from India..." deserves to be put down as such. Even if you put "Boxing drills mural" it would'nt change the fact that it depicts Indian and Chinese monks in sparring.
  • The community of naysayers is microscopic, and severely rejected by a list a thousand times larger than the one I have provided. The reader needs to know that this topic could not survive conspiracy theories and revisionist history just like the Bible or the Koran. The reader also needs to know that the traditional claims have been endorsed by just about everybody, and the revisionist claims have been rejected by just about everybody as well.

Other points:-

  • The dual links to the article make the user familiar with both the articles mine and JFD's. I have provided links to JFD's article next to mine so the reader gets to know both POVS.
  • The article also deals with the hoax that the Chinese were incapable of martial arts or the Indians were the source of everything, a hoax which people have used to their advantage for presenting an extreme POV and then convieniently disproving it.

I suggest that instead of attaching tags to articles, you work on the Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts. The article is too Bodhidharma-centric, even despite the obvious flaws I did not edit out the content from the article but chose to make a new article. So the reader knows both POVs extensively. I have provided dual links too, wherever required. If both articles are strong then we might do well to present both our cases to the reader.

Freedom skies 06:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I hate to tell you this buddy, but nowhere does it state that batuo taught martial arts in any of the primary sources.... he was a religious leader... it's like saying that since jesus christ brought christianity to western europe and since jesus christ was from the middle east, then all discoveries from europe must have come from the middle east. further, your article is pov in the way it is written and quotes the same authors that JFD and I use who are against the idea of bodhidharma transmitting martial arts and even against the existence of bodhidharma as a real person... you cite sources who supposedly support your view but the vast majority of them even agree that what they are working on is legend. YOu are also only providing half truths in your article and quoting people and ideas out of context. The only reason JFD and I are against a list of people in the past was because we wanted to give a list of Ph.D's and academics who were specialists in the field not a whole list of laypeople and interviews and newspaper articles and random websites, which you have done. but if you would like to play that game, then we can assuredly provide that list.... Kennethtennyson 14:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. His role as the very founder of the focal point of martial arts, the Shaolin Si and the teacher of it's first monks deserves a mention. I have'nt said that either Ta Ma or Batuo taught martial arts, their role has been mentioned in proper context.
The list of revisionist historians and conspiracy theorists is strictly microscopic. Are you suggesting that the Shaolin does'nt know it's own affairs ?? Wong Kiew Kit , BBC etc are more credible than mere PHds trying to push an alternate POV, as is the case with the Bible or the Koran.
The article is not POV. I did not attempt to even touch JFD's article and went extra length to provide both links wherever required.
One more thing Kenny, this article is about martial arts. Given your record of trying to dispute Dhalsim's style, Britain's contributions in decrease of the IMA, Mallayuddha as a martial art and such, are you sure you're at home with this ???
Of course, if you want to cause incessent disputes and rabid reverts than you should feel at home with this. Who knows, JFD might even drop you another barnstar this time.
Freedom skies 14:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
the way you have written the article, you have written it to suggest that Batuo taught them martial arts... you have not written it as him being a spiritual leader. further, i am compiling a list right now... give me some time... and as for dhalsim - he is a VIDEO game character made by capcom... there is no such thing as yoga martial arts and it is not possible for a human being to breathe fire as a self defense weapon... regardless, the article is a copy of our article and you shouldn't quote authors who do not agree with your ideas or who dispute it. as i stated before, most of the authors that you have cited fully agree that they are working with a legend, which you do not mention here. Kennethtennyson 14:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Batuo was the founding abbott of the temple which is the focal point, Batuos was a Dhyana master and Sengchou benefitted from both his teachings in Dyana (involves exercises) and the institution which he initiated.

No one said Dhalsim was not a video game charecter, one thing that you did say was his style was not Yoga.

Call it legend or hypothesis, there are two forms that exist. One is the form which states that Bodhidharma bought martial arts to poor. sniveling Chinese and the other is that he was an idiot who contributed nothing. The effort here is to show that as a Dyana master, he merely introduced exercises, the Chinese people did the development of the mesmerizing work.

Quit the Paranoia routine, It's old.

My suggestion once again is, people would like to hear what the pro legend accounts are, and they'll turn to the online pro-India sites. My article at least has a link to the "Disputed Indian origins .." article. Plus, I'm not pushing a pro India, Pro China or anti India POV, stating things that happened. Dyana exercises combined with the efforts of the natives are the key, I have a good article or two about the similarities in nomaclature and moves in Kung fu and Indian Kata pattern, I chose to keep them away, I mentioned the other side's link without putting my link in the other side's article, I gave credit to the Chinese for their sheer genius of developing the arts and I have applied dual links.

Your tags are both bizzare and malicious, explain them, and work on the overly Ta Mo centric "Disputed origins." article too. We should build up our articles and avoid messing with the other's article with malicious intent.

Freedom skies 14:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's amazing... you state that you're not pro-india and yet at the same time you've written very pro-indian articles such as "the ancient achievements of india" which when it was a subsection of indian nationalism resulted in the article being locked 2-3 times. also, your little statement on the chinese strikes of an extremely biased and prejudiced person. regardless, here's the list of university professors who have disputed any association... and man is it getting longer by the minute...

Historians at Universities who Disclaim the Association with Martial Arts: Tang Hao, Xu Zhen, Matsuda Ryuchi, Paul Pelliot, Stanley Henning

Historians who think it is All Legend: Heinrich Dumoulin, J. A. G. Roberts, Meir Shahar, Kenneth Ch'en, Bernard Faure, Susan Lynn Peterson

Lay Authors who disclaim the Association with Martial Arts: Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo

I'll be back with some more... Kennethtennyson 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be back with some more, I'm sure compiling a list four times larger than that one will not be a problem.
I never said I'm not pro-India, everyone is proud of his heritage. I said that I'm not pushing a pro India POV in this context. I have gone out of my way and not touched JFD's article, mentioned the genius of the Chinese, provided dual links etc., of course given your past of rabid tagging, mindless reverting, meaningless anti India POV you won't respond to my assumptions of good faith. Anyways.
Freedom skies 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility. Maybe over time we can come to understand each other. Regardless, i am not anti-india at all... althought when you call chinese people "sniveling", it could be considered biased. regardless, let us not fill wikipedia with a long list of books from google scholar search... you and i can both bring names; it will end up like a version of the "west side story" where two gangs meet each other and butt heads - it's sort of pointless as we both agree that we both disagree with each other on some aspects of history. If you notice, my edits are on accuracy. some of the sentences that you have written are misleading when read by other people. Kennethtennyson 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the list of authors in your page surprised me, it was people who endorsed the "legend" and even people who support it. How is it going to help build up your case ?? Anyways, could'nt resist editing the page a couple of times, adding few links could'nt hurt, y'know. Thoguht, I could motivate you to get more links (kidding).
Anyways, I have gone to lengths stating that the Chinese developed the arts from their native stayles and the exerices, meditation and discipline which form an integral part of any Dhyana regimen. Dyana and the very establishment of Shaolin was the reason why the role of Buddhabhara as the teacher of Sengchou is important. It specifically states that he was a "Dhyana" master and a teacher to Sengchou, who under his guidence and his teachings of Dhyana, learnt martial arts at the instituion of Shaolin, which was found by Batuo. Buddhabhadra's expertise was in Dyana exercises, Dyana meditation and the discipline from which his students benefitted.
Freedom skies 18:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Some have postulated that sengchou was a retired soldier. No mention in the primary writings of Batuo teaching him anything outside of religious lessons. Regardless, i don't understand your reasoning behind erasing the list that i have in my article. Read your citation for nishima more closely. Kennethtennyson 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nishiyama has admired Ta Mo, but does admiration qualify as him dismissing it as a legend and rejecting any connections whatsoever ?? All he does it connect Ta Mo to Okinawan arts, and subsequently Japanese arts. This is just the influence you aim to disprove, isn't it ??
Sengchou, as skilled as he was, learnt Dyana for physical and mental strength at the facilility initiated by Buddhabhadra. The retired soldier stayed under master Batuo, in master Batuo's institution and leart Dhyana from the Dhyana master himself, the Taishō Tripiṭaka mentions him after he goes through the catalyst, not during his tenure in the army or learning native arts. All they know is that after staying at the facility of the Shaolin, the soldier is disiplined, strong, can concentrate and has evolved. His native martial arts combined with monastary training and teachings have earned him a spot in the Taishō Tripiṭaka. A sign of things to come ?? ?? ??
Stop being paranoid, nowhere have I said that Batuo (or even Ta Mo) taught martial arts but we do know They taught exercises and discipline in the capacity of Dyana masters, which when combined by the expertise in native fighting styles eg. Sengchou or when used to strengthen the body for hard physical and mental labour, like the 18 monks, turned out to be essential for martial arts as we know them.
Of course if you feel that Chinese martial arts could have existed in their current glory without Buddhism, the Shaolin temple or Dhyana (Zen in Japanese) meditation and exercises (see Yogācāra), concentration then we might argue on entirely different lines here. Freedom skies 09:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

BBC citation

The article states that "In addition, reputed organizations such as the British Broadcasting Corporation, the New York Times, and the Discovery Channel to name a few, have also rejected the revisionist claims."

But the BBC cite links to a 2004 news report of the film Kill Bill part 2, the only relevent part of which says:

"According to legend, kung fu was brought to China by an Indian Buddhist who settled in the north of the country in the Tang dynasty, over 1,000 years ago. He is said to have set up a Shaolin temple, and taught martial arts to his disciples."

Which doesn't support the allegation at all as it explicitly calls the story a legend. I am removing the BBC reference until a better source can be found. --MichaelMaggs 07:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your argument doesnt prove that this is a bad source.-Bharatveer 07:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Only that it doesn't support the material in question.
JFD 09:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The article says that the BBC .. has "rejected the revisionist claims". As I understand it, whoever wrote 'revisionist claims' intended it to mean 'claims that deny there was any Indian influence on Chinese martial arts'. The BBC Kill Bill page does not reject that stance; indeed if anything it appears to support it by explicitly calling the ku-fu-came-from-India story a legend rather than a fact. There may be other source which support your belief, but this one does not. You may like to consider revising the sentence to avoid the incorrect implication that "reputed organizations such as the British Broadcasting Corporation" back up the out-of-India view. The cited page neither backs it up nor denies it; it simply calls it a "legend". --MichaelMaggs 09:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. The BBC mention endorses the effect of Ta Mo not disputes it. The legend has been cited when the question of the origin of Shaolin arts appeared.

To quote the section in it's entire context:

Legend

The presence of such strong influences from just one city in so many films is remarkable - however it has surprising origins.

Keanu Reeves in The Matrix The Matrix series borrows heavily from China According to legend, kung fu was brought to China by an Indian Buddhist who settled in the north of the country in the Tang dynasty, over 1,000 years ago. He is said to have set up a Shaolin temple, and taught martial arts to his disciples.

But the origins of the kung fu that is part of popular culture are from around 100 years ago when a soldier, who had learned from the Shaolin monks, was forced to hide in a Cantonese opera troupe.

It is said that eventually he taught the moves to the members.

"They can't use actual fighting on stage, so they transform it into some kind of dance-like action," explained Hong Kong film archive programmer Law Kar.

"Then the Cantonese actors brought the tradition into Chinese cinema.

"So in early Cantonese cinema, in the 1960s and even in the 1970s, the scenes of fighting in films are in fact opera-stage fighting. They're not real kung fu."

Instead, the kung fu seen on screen is more balletic, and based on movement.

Cheng-Sim Lim said that this was what made it exciting on film - and why it had proved so influential.

"There is a clarity to the way they construct these scenes," she said.

"You don't just move the camera in a blur to suggest action - you actually show the action.

"That's what's so incredible, because you see people - even though they may be wearing wires and all that kind of stuff - you see the body in motion, and it's beautiful."

The "Legend" heading covers very well established facts about Kung Fu movies as well. In addition of providing Bodhidharma as a source of Shaolin martial arts. My own opinion on this might differ but the endorsement is clear. The legend section covers what the BBC has put forward as origins of sholin martial arts and then goes forward to the development of cinema further in the same section.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 10:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read the Kill Bill page through very carefully, and I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean. You may be reading into it something I just don't see. Is my summary, above, of what you mean by 'revisionist' correct? Sorry if I'm just being thick, but can you please point out to me the exact words used in the Kill Bill article which demonstrate that the BBC "rejected the revisionist claims".--MichaelMaggs 10:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Misleading use of word 'legendary' (to mean famous, or notable, or something similar?)

Freedom Skies: In this edit you have silently reverted an edit I made (deletion of 'legendary') without giving any reason, discussing on the talk page, nor even using an edit summary. Could you please always, at the very least, use an edit summary so others can see why you are making the changes you do? To do otherwise is at the very least impolite. If you disagree with my edit, please indicate why so that we can discuss. regards. --MichaelMaggs 10:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Many martial artists have written about the subject. Out of those I have selected the few who are the most unmatched in their respective fields. Hence the use of legendary. Regards. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's an unhappy choice of word, since elsewhere in the article 'legendary' is used in the sense of 'fictional'. Here you are confusingly using the totally different and less-formal meaning of 'unmatched' (or famous?). Suggest you use 'notable', 'famous' or something along those lines instead. --MichaelMaggs 11:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Duely noted. Will do in next session. I have to go out, Jog now. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies)

Reliance on New York Times web pages as sources

I have removed two web pages. The first linked to a non-public page that is accessible by registered users only. The second does not support the statement that the New York Times has "rejected the revisionist claims". What it actually says is:

The introduction of fighting skills at Shaolin Monastery has been attributed in legend to the Indian monk Bodhidharma, who went to the monastery in 527, three decades after it was founded by Batuo, another Indian monk. Bodhidharma allegedly spent nine years in contemplation, facing the wall of a cave on Song Mountain above the monastery. For exercise and protection from wild animals, he taught himself self-defense and later passed the skills along to his disciples.
Actually, the ancient martial arts probably originated even earlier as Buddhist monks learned to fend off brigands and other predators. Variations of their refined techniques subsequently reached Japan, Okinawa, Korea and other Asian countries that developed their own distinct fighting styles.

which makes it very clear that Bodhidharma's involvement "has been attributed in legend". Which is hardly a rejection of what the article calls the 'revisionist' view - that his involvement is legendary and can't actually be proved. --MichaelMaggs 17:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The article endorses the legend instead of endorsing conflicting revisionist theories. Hence the idea of it being used as citable evidence of how when the history of Kung Fu is mentioned the historians point towards taditional claims instead of citing modern revisionist works.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 16:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ta Mo?

There should be some discussion of who Ta Mo is in this quote:

Finding that the sedentary life often left the monks weak both in body and mind, Ta Mo decided to encourage physical discipline as well as meditation. He taught streching exercises from the Indian tradition of Yoga with which he was familiar. On their part, the Chinese monks were reminded of the native fighting techniques from their youth. A group of eighteen particulary dedicated monks then developed and refined a system of streching exercises and movements of what is now the core of Shao-lin Chuan, the source for all subsequent martial arts, including Tai Chi Chuan. The Chinese revere the eighteen monks to this day and venerate them as Lohans.

"Ta Mo" appears nowhere else in the article. The identity of Ta Mo and Bodhidharma ought to be explained. --MichaelMaggs 17:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ta Mo, Daruma, Dhamo, Buddhadharma are the names of Bodhidharma in various languages. Refer to Page 1 of Long Life; Good Health thru T'ai Chi: Through T'ai Chi Ch'uan by Simmone Kuo.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: NPOV tag for current article

Conversation by editors to date

Conflicting theories deserve to be mentioned as such. NPOV tag or not. Freedom skies| talk  05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? I was always under the impression that WP:NPOV requires that conflicting theories deserve to be presented with objectivity. Labeling an opposing viewpoing "revisionist" simply b/c you disagree violates the principles of wiki. Either rewrite the opposing viewpoints section or keep the NPOV tag on. Djma12 17:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Not quite. This is not a view and counter view case. This is a case where all of these researchers tried to disprove a traditionally endorsed version and arrived at different conclusions thereby harming their own cause. Conflicts do not arise in the traditional manner here but a manner of different results for the same subject. The attempt has not met with sucsess presumably due to the conflicts in the various researches and is written as such. Freedom skies| talk  19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Come now. If no coherent argumentation exists against this article's claim, why does another well-cited wiki article on the same topic exist to disprove this article? I am reapplying NPOV and applying for arbitration. Djma12 20:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you've got it backwards. This article exists to disprove the other one as the majority held POV was overshadowed by an overwhelming minority. They also corrupted the Yi Jin Jing article. Freedom skies| talk  20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, any opinion that has enough support to generate another well-cited article should not be considered "an overhwhelming minority." Djma12 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well cited? Kindly compare the individuals involved numerically and the authority they weild in the other article with his one. Freedom skies| talk  20:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
With respect, that is not your sole decision to make. Djma12 20:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Proposed Merger with Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection

  • Incidentally, I feel that the second article would make an excellent "Opposing Viewpoints" section for this article. It would streamline both articles while helping with POV. Djma12 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Canzonieri, Salvatore (1998). "History of Chinese Martial Arts: Jin Dynasty to the Period of Disunity". Han Wei Wushu. 3 (9). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. Broughton, Jeffrey L. (1999). The Bodhidharma Anthology: The Earliest Records of Zen. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 109. ISBN 0-520-21972-4.
  3. Canzonieri, Salvatore (1998). "History of Chinese Martial Arts: Jin Dynasty to the Period of Disunity". Han Wei Wushu. 3 (9). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Categories: